Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal has been filed by org. complainant whose complaint was dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by order dated 20/09/2011 passed in consumer complaint No.134/2011. 2. The consumer complaint was filed by the appellant with the grievance that respondent/Insurance Company had not paid him the amount under the policy which he had purchased for his own vehicle. It was the case of the complainant that he owned a vehicle No.M-10-Z-8557. It was a Mahindra Pick-up vehicle. He had taken a comprehensive insurance policy from respondent-Reliance General Insurance Company at Kolhapur. The policy was in force from 06/12/2009 to 05/12/2010. On 07/04/2010 when the complainant was taking said Pick-up Van from Sangli to Pune, it met with an accident it was dashed by a truck. The Pick-up Van was damaged considerably. He then lodged the claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim and therefore, he filed consumer complaint claiming the amount of `2,95,000/- as per Insured Declared Value of the vehicle mentioned in the policy and also claimed interest @ 18% p.a. on the said amount besides `25,000/- towards mental harassment and `2,000/- towards costs. 3. Opponent filed written version and contested the claim. The only ground taken by the opponent is that at the time of accident the vehicle was not having Fitness Certificate and Fitness Certificate had already expired on 09/01/2010 and complainant had not renewed the same and at the time of accident the vehicle was unfit to be driven on the road and on this ground the claim was repudiated. 4. After considering the affidavits and documents placed on record, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint agreeing with the contention of the respondent that the complainant/appellant had committed breach of terms and conditions of the contract. In as much as at the time of accident, the vehicle of the complainant was not having Fitness Certificate. Fitness Certificate had already expired on 09/01/2010, whereas, accidental damage to his vehicle took place on 07/04/2010. Aggrieved by dismissal of the complaint, the org. complainant has filed this appeal. 5. We heard Mr.J.S. Bardeskar, Advocate for the appellant and without issuing notice, we are rejecting this appeal agreeing with the finding recorded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. We are of the view that the vehicle which is registered as Pick-Up Van must be having Fitness Certificate for taking the vehicle on the road. If the Fitness Certificate issued by the R.T.O. has expired, till owner or driver procures fresh Fitness Certificate for the vehicle, he is not permitted to ply the vehicle on the road and accident had took place on the road on the night of 07/04/2010, whereas Fitness Certificate of the vehicle belonging to the appellant had expired on 09/01/2010. In our view the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum rightly dismissed the complaint. 6. It was tried to be contended by Counsel for the appellant that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum should have at least granted compensation on Non-Standard Basis. He placed reliance on the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Amalendu Sahoo V/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court found that the vehicle of the insured was purchased for personal use and insured with the Insurance Company, but it was found that the vehicle was used for hire and reward at the time of accident, the Supreme Court was of the view that on Non-Standard Basis, the amount of compensation should have been paid and accordingly, it directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount on Non-Standard Basis allowing the appeal preferred by the insured. But in that case, only violation was that the vehicle was purchased for personal use and it was found employed for hire and reward, but in our case, since the vehicle was registered as Pick-Up Van, it was transport vehicle and Fitness Certificate of the vehicle is sine qua non and it is a material condition of the policy that such a vehicle should have had the Fitness Certificate issued by the competent R.T.O. and since, this was the terms going to the root of the contract itself, we are of the view that ruling pressed into service by Counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and relying on the said ruling, no relief can be granted to the appellant. Therefore, at the stage of admission itself, we summarily reject the appeal preferred by the org. complainant. Hence, the order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Appeal stands summarily rejected. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Pronounced Dated 24th April 2012. |
